Dyslexia is understood through medical and psychological discourses which prioritise defining, identifying, and classifying dyslexia, and its clinical aspects (Snowling et al., 2020). These dominant frameworks discursively constitute dyslexia as a deficit to be managed or corrected (Elliott and Grigorenko, 2015). However, following Foucault (1977), the broader social context should equally be considered since dyslexia is not only a medical condition but also a social construction shaped by cultural, institutional, and political forces (Kirby, 2020). Governments, education systems, and other institutions impose normative expectations, aiming to transform individuals into economically productive members of society (Foucault, 1977). These expectations or social norms and cultural standards, create notions of normality and abnormality, pressuring individuals to conform to an idealised profile of normality (Foucault, 2003). Failure to meet societal expectations invites attempts at remediation and rehabilitation, or exclusion as dyslexia is commonly perceived as a problem to be fixed rather than a different way of learning and engaging with reading.

The dominant concept of motivation also derives from psychology-based discourses (Saracho, 2016) and motivation to read is associated with reading performance and external rewards (Ives, et al., 2022). However, for students with dyslexia, this link may be less relevant or, indeed, counterproductive as dyslexia inherently involves challenges such as difficulties with reading speed, accuracy, and comprehension that can hinder reading performance (Elliott and Grigorenko, 2015). Hence, framing motivation exclusively in terms of performance outcomes is problematic for these students.

The teaching of literacy is shaped by government policies, curriculum frameworks, and assessment systems including national testing aimed at improving early reading and writing skills.  In the UK, a special educational needs (SEN) code of practice outlines early identification processes, legal rights, teacher training, stakeholder collaboration and the responsibilities of teachers and schools (Department for Education, 2014). Yet, dyslexia is barely mentioned, and the code lacks detailed, actionable instructions for schools, leaving teachers to interpret and implement the guidance in ways that can vary widely between schools. Moreover, although teachers are tasked with advocating for inclusive practice and driving change, they frequently lack the professional support and clarity required to do so effectively and the absence of coherent professional support leads to professional fragility among teachers and inconsistent approaches to students with SEN (Curran, 2019).

Neoliberal European political and policy discourse positions education as producing effective contributors to national economies by developing the required skills and knowledge (Foucault, 2009). Hence, neoliberal education policies often emphasise standardised testing and teaching methods that prioritise test preparation rather than supporting broader learning and critical thinking (Hussain, Knijnik and Balram, 2024).  In the European context, many countries have adopted education systems that emphasise standardisation, competition, and performance outcomes (Verger, Parcerisa and Fontdevila, 2018), which risk marginalising students with dyslexia, who may struggle with this narrow focus on academic achievement and formal methods. By exploring how these pressures impact student motivation and engagement with reading, the reported research contributes to ongoing discussions in Europe around the need to rethink education policies that prioritise performance (Berg, Jungblut and Jupskås, 2023).

The reading experiences and motivation of students with dyslexia was investigated, focusing on the interplay between formal and informal reading activities in different settings. It aimed to understand whether, and how, students with dyslexia experience pleasure in reading, mobilising a concept of pleasure drawn from Foucault (1992). The role of social interactions with family members and friends in influencing the reading motivation of students with dyslexia was also explored. A further aim was to understand how structured, performance-oriented environments contrast with unstructured, interest-driven activities in shaping the motivation and reading experiences of students with dyslexia.

Ethics approval was obtained through the University of Plymouth ethics committee following submission of relevant documents, including a data management plan and risk assessment. A qualitative methodology was adopted to investigate the reading experiences and reading motivation of six secondary school students with dyslexia aged 11 to 16 years in the UK. The primary data collection method was a researcher-directed diary, specifically designed for secondary school students with dyslexia. This method allowed participants to record their daily reading experiences over a seven-day period. Participants were able to respond in different ways, including written notes, voice recordings, and relevant photographs. This multimodal approach was intended to offer alternative ways of expressing themselves. Participants were invited to complete their diaries following any reading activity or interaction related to reading regardless of context. The diaries encouraged reflection as participants recorded their feelings, experiences, and thoughts related to both formal and informal reading activities. A qualitative content analysis method ensured replicable and valid inferences from the students’ diary entries (Krippendorff, 2022). The process comprised four distinct stages: 1) meaning units were identified based on the research aims; 2) the meaning units were condensed to focus on the most relevant data; 3) the inductive creation of codes; 4) codes were organised into sub-categories and meta-categories to create a clearer understanding of the patterns in the data (Bengtsson, 2016). These stages were performed several times in an iterative process that maintained the quality and trustworthiness of the analysis. Additionally, two researchers conducted the analysis separately before comparing their findings to reach a consensus on the categorisation of data and to increase the validity of the research (Graneheim and Lundman, 2004). A quantification method was then undertaken involving frequency counts of instances of categories to calculate relative frequencies and assist future research (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008). Participants and their parents were informed of their right to withdraw before the analysis stage. Participants' names were not included in any documentation, except for a securely stored list used solely for identification by the researcher. Additionally, the collected data was exclusively used for research purposes (British Education Research Association, 2018). The responsibility to report any disclosures indicating safeguarding concerns, such as harm, abuse, or radicalisation was understood. The duty of care to report the incident to relevant parties in university security during emergencies and to local safeguarding officers in non-emergency cases was also recognised.

Most students expressed frustration with text-heavy material or complex vocabulary, even when the material was of particular interest to them. A minority found that illustrations or images made reading materials more enjoyable and easier. There were noteworthy differences in how formal and informal reading activities affected students' reading experiences; the former (e.g. reading textbooks, history notes or class assignments) often led to stress, frustration, and anxiety. The pressure to perform in an academic context made it difficult for students to remain motivated or enjoy reading; such formal reading tasks were perceived as obligatory, academic, and unpleasurable. Some students also reported feelings of stress, anxiety or embarrassment when reading aloud or completing reading tasks in front of others. In contrast, several informal reading activities (e.g. reading books related to personal interests for pleasure at home, interacting with social media, or engaging in daily activities that required some reading with friends or relatives) tended to evoke more positive emotions and higher levels of engagement. Informal reading allowed students to engage at their own pace without the pressure associated with academic performance, producing a sense of autonomy and enjoyment. Overall, the findings suggest that reading framed as a voluntary, interest-driven activity can be pleasurable and more motivating for students with dyslexia. Such students are likely to disengage, feeling pressurised and experiencing stress when required to engage in formal reading tasks in education settings, thereby compounding the difficulties caused by the nature of dyslexia. It is possible to improve reading motivation and engagement in students with dyslexia by focusing on their interests and allowing them to engage with reading in less formal and more enjoyable settings. Informal activities that require some reading can impact enjoyment, engagement and motivation, producing a sense of autonomy and personal connection to reading activities.

Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis, NursingPlus Open, 2, pp. 8–14. Berg, A.E., Jungblut, J. and Jupskås, A.R. (2023). We don’t need no education? education policies of Western European populist radical right parties, West European Politics, 46(7), pp. 1312–1342. British Educational Research Association. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research (4th edn). London: BERA. Curran, H. (2019). The SEND Code of Practice has given me clout’: A phenomenological study illustrating how SENCos managed the introduction of the send reforms, British Journal of Special Education, 46(1), pp. 76–93. Department for Education (2014). Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0–25 years. Elliott, J. and Grigorenko, E.L. (2015). The dyslexia debate. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Elo, S. and Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), pp. 107–115. Foucault, M (2003). Abnormal: Lectures at the Collège de France 1974–1975 , trans. Graham Burchell. New York: Picador. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish. The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). London: Penguin Group. Foucault, M. (1992). The history of sexuality vol. 2: The use of pleasure. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Foucault, M. (2009). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the College de France 1977 78. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Graneheim, U.H. and Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness, Nurse Education Today, 24(2), pp. 105–112. Hussain, S., Knijnik, J. and Balram, R. (2024). Curriculum wars and youth political education in the UK and Australia—A narrative review’, Curriculum Perspectives, 44(2), pp. 193–203. Ives, S.T. et al. (2022). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation: Context, theory, and measurement, Reading Psychology, 44(3), pp. 306–325. Kirby, P. (2020). Dyslexia debated, then and now: A historical perspective on the dyslexia debate, Oxford Review of Education, 46(4), pp. 472–486. Krippendorff, K. (2022). Content analysis an introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks etc.: SAGE Publications. Saracho, O. N. (2016). Contemporary Perspectives on research in motivation in early childhood education. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Snowling, M.J., Hulme, C. and Nation, K. (2020). Defining and understanding dyslexia: Past, present and future, Oxford Review of Education, 46(4), pp. 501–513. Verger, A., Parcerisa, L. and Fontdevila, C. (2018). The growth and spread of large-scale assessments and test-based accountabilities: A political sociology of global education reforms, Educational Review, 71(1), pp. 5–30.